Five ultimately, each percentage point is 2.5 and we re really going to start to rock. we need this as our final push and you ll see numbers that are great. president trump will promoting the gop tax plan yesterday. joining me, jared burnstein and msnbc contributor and alan burnard. gentlemen, good morning to you. i ll reach out to you first, jared, how realistic is 4 to 6% growth and let me remind the viewers what john said in one word of 6% growth, ridiculous, what do you think? that s a great word for 6%. that would be a doubling of the current growth rate and that s extremely unlikely. this is economics, not physics, there is you can never rule anything out but i guess what i would say that s most germane to
Higher and that could mean for example 0.2% per year growth for ten years. obviously that s much, much smaller than what the president and people are talking about but i think it s also makes the reform well worth doing if we address the debt impact. alan, i know you re against the deficit growing but you re not against the tax cuts. the stock market is going gang busters right now. the job numbers, 17-year lows, corporations, i mean, talk about the piles of cash they are sitting on and have been doing so for years. the timing right now of a tax cut is why? well, the timing this is not a temporary demand stimulus. there is a place for that stimulus when you re in a recession and now wouldn t be the time for that. this is a growth policy that s intended to increase the potential of the economy, notably by attracting investment to the united states rather than to foreign countries. i mean, i think it s a matter of
The conversation we ve been having here is that there is no tax plan that would generate the kinds of growth rates that the president is talking about. you don t get magnitude changes in growth rates of that dimension through changing the tax code and that s even if you had a serious growth oriented tax plan, which this is not. in my view, this tax plan largely redistributes wealth up the income scale compaand tiny temporarily, those numbers are just pulled out of thin air. okay, alan, your response to all of that. when you do the math, do the numbers add up? i think the corporate tax rate over time the debt impact is addressed, could lead to output being permanently 2%
Far lower than 20. so you got a big difference incenti incentivizing them and they can gain the system to pay 10% in a high tax country and tax havens where taxes are zero percent in places like the cayman islands and ireland and bermuda and so if you actually get into the details that differential taking the tax rate down to 21% here is under mined by all the goodies they give to the multi nationals who offshore. so, alan, this plan remains pretty unpopular with american voters. why do republicans insist the cash to corporations and rich will do the way of the trickled down economics theory when there is absolutely no evidence of that happening in u.s. history. it seems to be a theory yet to be proven. i think there is abundant evidence that corporate investment is responsive to the